Dear God, Shall I drop digital?

[cocker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I will be more blunt. Mr. Ash, if you do not employ wet printing, then film is a waste of time and money. Once you present a scanned negative or positive, it enters the digital paradigm: it is no longer film. What are to find in your picture above that evinces film?

 

That's just nonsense. The whole film versus digital babble is a waste of valuable lifetime with garbage on both sides of the divide. Use both, use one or the other, make sun pictures on toilet paper or scribble with a pencil. It's all the same.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bill]

I will be more blunt. Mr. Ash, if you do not employ wet printing, then film is a waste of time and money. Once you present a scanned negative or positive, it enters the digital paradigm: it is no longer film. What are we to find in your picture above that evinces film?

 

I disagree. You are getting hung up in the hardware.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Michael Hiles]

if you do not employ wet printing, then film is a waste of time and money.

 

I agree with Steve - this, as a blanket statement, is wrong.

[pico]

As someone who has developed and scanned hundreds of rolls of film I have to disagree strongly with this statement.

 

I appreciate the refutation, Steve. It could lead to an enlightening thread.

 

One observation of mine - after downloading a number of MM '.dng' files and looking at them carefully in Photoshop I can see a signature in the shadows that have never come up in my own scanned negatives from 35mm to 4x5". There is a certain micro-contrast in the MM files that my negatives do not produce. This may be for better or worse, as one desires to consider it. In other words, regardless of the talent of the MM photographer, the characteristics may appear and distinguish the MM in that particular regard.

 

Regardless, I stand my ground until convinced otherwise. For now. Scanned film is not to be compared with its original foundation - to be wet printed.

 

And to Keith Cocker - with greatest respect this is not a digital vs analog or film observation. I have no 'vs' in my intent at all. Differences are good.

 

Peace,

Pico

[Steve Ash]

Pico,

 

I do own a V35 Enlarger but sadly there is no space for a darkroom in my current home. Thus it is stored at my parents home (some hundreds of miles from my home). I made some test enlargements which I very much enjoyed. Beginning next year I will move and a darkroom is foreseen.

 

Nevertheless, what I was saying is that for some mind-set reasons I get better compositions when I shoot with my film M. Maybe it is a mental upset only which increases concentration while shooting with film.

 

Regards,

Steve

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pico]

[...]Nevertheless, what I was saying is that for some mind-set reasons I get better compositions when I shoot with my film M. Maybe it is a mental upset only which increases concentration while shooting with film.

 

I appreciate that. I am stocking my little truck for a trip (good health providing) from Minnesota to far North California and storing a 4x5" with three lenses, a wide-angle MF, two M4 bodies and the M9 which has already earned its place behind the seat, always ready. I hope (or pray) that I reclaim the film mode of seeing again. Honestly, from using the M9 for the past 18 months (with some exceptions), I think I've become corrupted, or at least lazy.

--

Pico - going through the end-of-life thing

[Scarlet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

[ATTACH]329857[/ATTACH]

 

I would have exposed for the ruins instead of letting them wash out like that.

[250swb]

One observation of mine - after downloading a number of MM '.dng' files and looking at them carefully in Photoshop I can see a signature in the shadows that have never come up in my own scanned negatives from 35mm to 4x5". There is a certain micro-contrast in the MM files that my negatives do not produce. This may be for better or worse, as one desires to consider it. In other words, regardless of the talent of the MM photographer, the characteristics may appear and distinguish the MM in that particular regard.

 

If you can choose a paper grade for your wet print be assured you can also remove any individual micro contrast signature inherent in an MM file in post processing. You may look at things in Photoshop, but I'm not so sure you are learning anything by it. With as much information a possible recorded in a digital file the resulting image is open to any interpretation, but it's possible that some people just don't know how to do it, and so remain shackled to Leica's view of the world.

 

Steve

 

 

Steve

[CalArts 99]

if you do not employ wet printing, then film is a waste of time and money. Once you present a scanned negative or positive, it enters the digital paradigm: it is no longer film.

 

I can agree that a scanned negative enters the 'digital paradigm' but I'm not sure why that's a "waste of time and money."

 

I have a print (published in this catalog from the exhibition: merrellpublishers.com) that comes from a 6x9 piece of film which was drum scanned and then edited in Photoshop. It was printed with an Océ LightJet enlarger onto Fuji Crystal Archive RA-4 paper.

 

The scan produced a much better print than when initially printed on a conventional enlarger (Durst with Rodenstock lens) from the original negative. Yes, they were both 'wet printed' as final output, but scanning the film was not at all a waste of money and in fact made the final print a higher quality product in all respects.

[wildlightphoto]

The scan produced a much better print than when initially printed on a conventional enlarger (Durst with Rodenstock lens) from the original negative. Yes, they were both 'wet printed' as final output, but scanning the film was not at all a waste of money and in fact made the final print a higher quality product in all respects.

 

This has been my experience as well.

[AlanG]

Has God chimed in yet?

[CalArts 99]

Has God chimed in yet?

 

He/she knows better not to...

[pico]

If you can choose a paper grade for your wet print be assured you can also remove any individual micro contrast signature inherent in an MM file in post processing. You may look at things in Photoshop, but I'm not so sure you are learning anything by it. With as much information a possible recorded in a digital file the resulting image is open to any interpretation, but it's possible that some people just don't know how to do it, and so remain shackled to Leica's view of the world.

 

I am quoting the post above to certain that is associated with my reply of "absolute bullshit, irrelevant to the original post, and in general - uniformed and stupid."

[Steve Ash]

Btw, the headline was chosen for fun reasons and not to encourage a "religous" discussion. (Religous in the sense of not accepting other point of views)

Steve

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stunsworth]

I appreciate the refutation, Steve. It could lead to an enlightening thread.

 

This is ground that has been covered may times, and the one thing I've noticed is that the people who say scanning film isn't worthwhile tend to be ones who've never tried it - please note I do not necessarily include you in this, I've no idea if you've tried scanning or not.

 

We had one chap a while ago telling us very grandly that it was impossible to scan traditional b&w films, not that it was tricky (it isn't), but that it was impossible. Of course he'd never tried it either.

 

To be frank, I can't be bothered going over the same old ground yet again.

[hamey]

Taking both Digital and Film (slides) to France and England the results I got from my slides are superior to the Digital images.

 

Though frankly I must admit I used a Japanese DSLR, not in the same class as the M9 however using

Leica lenses the digital images look great on my Mac but when comparing them to the Provia slides, the

Digital images just look ordinary with no life like distinctive features like the transparances.

 

However Digital imaging is handy as I can down load it onto my I pad and view it as I please, this will

pacify me until I process the real thing.

 

Long live the Slide film.

 

Ken.

[250swb]

With a good scanner and technique, a good printer and Baryta paper, I don't think there is much if anything between the wet darkroom and a scanned image. There may have been a large gap a few years ago, but it can now be down to nothing if care is taken in choosing your materials.

 

Steve

[batmobile]

Regardless of hardware, they do have a different look. I almost always prefer the look of a silver print from a neg to the same shot on digital, printed digitally. It is to do with curves, grain, highlight rendering/dynamic range etc and most definitely real. That said, it often does not matter.

 

For my digital work, which is necessary, I end up with files that in many cases look as close to silver prints as I can get them. This is not because I think digital should look like film, but the film look is better and so push my digital files in the same direction. I do not force the issue and sometimes a digital file looks best much closer to origin than pushed in the direciton of how film would have looked, but this is rare. I think dynamic range and the way i tend to work in a darkroom, is what it is about.

 

My solution: improve your digital workflow. Or shoot film.

[Steve Ash]

As I have not found the right procedure to get scratch and stain free negatives scanning helps me to get rid of these mistakes in my processing/handling of the film.

 

Regards,

Steve

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Larcomb]

There is no need to use such a slow film. Many newer medium-speed materials are just as good. Ilford Delta 100, Fuji Neopan Acros, and Kodak T-Max 100 will give similar results, if not even better.